Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope, The
(Ecclesial Latin from Gr. , a variant of father, in classical
Latin -- Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633).
The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present
employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as
successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon
earth. Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by
the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the
Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the
Western Church. The Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in
the First Vatican Council in the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of
that Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on St.
Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff, the pope's
jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define in all questions of
faith and morals. This last point has been sufficiently discussed in the article
INFALLIBILITY, and will be only incidentally touched on here.
The present article is divided as follows:
I. Institution of a Supreme Head by Christ
II. Primacy of the Roman See
III. Nature and Extent of the Papal Power
IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope
V. Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia
VI. Election of the Popes
VII. Chronological List of the Popes
I. INSTITUTION OF A SUPREME HEAD BY CHRIST
The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two
famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew 16:17-19, the
office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the
Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-
Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in
heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound
also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in
heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His
profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the
other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the
Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal
blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a
special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27). He further
proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a
reward proper to himself: "Thou art Peter [, transliterated also ] and
upon this rock [] I will build my Church." The word for Peter and for rock in
the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various
attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to
something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The
term () here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew
qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see
CHURCH, THE, I).
Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of
those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter. The
expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is
often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7;
Osee 8:1; 9:15; 1 Cor. 3:9-17, Eph. 2:20-2; 1 Tim. 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; I Peter 2:5). Peter is to
be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house. He is to be the principle
of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not
joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of
this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which
buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this
foundation. It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will
prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One: "The gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The
only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by
possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all
subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle
of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we
remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isiah 28:16) and Christ's own words
(Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is
therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is
His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular
manner.
In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of
the kingdom of heaven. The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares
that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless
Sobna: "And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall
open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open." In all countries the
key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer
on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in
His place. Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It
is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant
of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure.
Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification. The
meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the
rise of the sixteenth-century heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have
been put forward by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the
rejection of the plain sense of Christ's words. Recent Anglican controversy tends to the
view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part taken by
him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never more than among the Apostles (see Lightfoot, "Apost. Fathers", II, 480; Gore, "Roman
Cath. Claims", v; Puller, "Primitive Saints, etc.", lect. 3). It is manifest that this is quite
insufficient as an explanation of the terms of Christ's promise. For a more detailed
consideration of the passage the following works may be consulted: Knabenbauer, "In
Matt.", ad loc; Passaglia, " De Praerog. B. Petri.", II, iii-x; Palmieri "De Rom. Pont.", 225-
78.
The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the
Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the
earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the
Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [] of my sheep"
indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in
Psalm 2:9 (Sept.): "Thou shalt rule [] them with a rod of iron". The scene
stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given
to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here
Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: "Simon, son
of John, thou Me more than these" ? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the
Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ
had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes
him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd. The
passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom: "He saith to him, 'Feed
my sheep'. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was
the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For
this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that
he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him
with the rule [] over the brethren.... If anyone should say 'Why then was it
James who received the See of Jerusalem?', I should reply that He made Peter the
teacher not of that see but of the whole world" ["Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.", 1. Cf. Origen,
"In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani",
1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2]. Even certain Protestant commentators (e.g.
Hengstenberg and recently Weizsecker) frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended
here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. On the other hand Dr. Gore (op. cit., 79)
and Mr. Puller (op. cit., 119), relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria ("In Joan."
12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St.
Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to
have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in
Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic
commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening
of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven.
The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic
authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated
proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.
The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles,
realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the
chief of the Apostolic band -- not , but the undisputed head of the
Church (see CHURCH, THE, III). If then Christ, as we have seen, established His
Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very
nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory
feature of ecclesiastical life. For the Church must endure to the end the very same
organization which Christ established. But in an organized society it is precisely the
constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a
society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution other than
Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine
kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential
modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a Divine institution.
None who believe that Christ came on earth to found a Church, an organized society
destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization
given to it by its Founder. The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the
end which, by Christ's declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He
was to give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should not
prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong to the
Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's life. Hence, throughout
the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may
prevail in her age-long struggle. Thus an analysis of Christ's words shows us that the
perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in
Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but
established a permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the
next section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike.
II. PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE
We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of
chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the
Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The
proof will fall into two parts: (a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and (b) that those
who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.
(a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome
It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered
martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who
admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city e.
g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703. It is not, however,
difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically
certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when
references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point. In the middle of
the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter,
saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter"
(Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the
controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter
(Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he
would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those
best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of
Asia Minor. In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21)
mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special
manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not
reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a
contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover,
he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a
Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty
dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition
according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop. About the
same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author
of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter
in the list of Roman bishops.
We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same
period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he
himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077). These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third
century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception
of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we
possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there
was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate. Irenaeus,
however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv. haer. 1:27:1, and
3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration
which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly
wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the
first of these passages. See "Zeitschrift fer kath. Theol.", 1902. In 3:4:3, the Latin version,
it is true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads .
Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after
the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had
themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus supported must be regarded as
beyond all legitimate doubt. Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), maintained as
certain by Mr. Puller, that it had its origin in the Clementine romance, has proved
singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the
second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion
that the language of Irenaeus, 3:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided
episcopate at Rome -- an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period.
He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to
Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to
vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine taught in the Roman Church.
Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church inherited the
teaching of both the great Apostles. Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to
suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the
words of Irenaeus.
(b) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship
History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has
ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely
acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the
consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is
St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St.
Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95
or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them
had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by
God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight
transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the
things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the
latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as" the first step
towards papal domination (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church
history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of
Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and
claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy
Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the
Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in
the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.
A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the
Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as
"presiding over the brotherhood of love [] The expression,
as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by
some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love". The same century gives us
the witness of St. Irenaeus -- a man who stands in the closest connexion with the age of
the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed. Bishop
of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (3:3:2) he brings against the
Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the
Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the
succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes: " Because it would be too
long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point
to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church,
which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter
and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and
to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession
of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings.
For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree -- that
is the faithful everywhere -- in communion with which Church the tradition of the
Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim
eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire
ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique,
conservata est ea que est ab apostolis traditio]". He then proceeds to enumerate the
Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then
occupied the see. Non-Catholic writers have sought to rob the passage of its
importance by translating the word "to resort to", and thus understanding
it to mean no more than that the faithful every side () resorted to
Rome, so that thus the stream of doctrine in that Church was kept immune from error.
Such a rendering, however, is excluded by the construction of the argument, which is
based entirely on the contention that the Roman doctrine is pure by reason of its
derivation from the two great Apostolic founders of the Church, Sts. Peter and Paul.
The frequent visits made to Rome by members of other Christian Churches could
contribute nothing to this. On the other hand the traditional rendering is postulated by
the context, and, though the object of innumerable attacks, none other possessing any
real degree of probability has been suggested in its place (see Dom. J. Chapman in
"Revue Benedictine", 1895, p. 48).
During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the
supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice
between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to
the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for
supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman)
practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of
Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such
a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a
regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her
unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to
the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by
Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself.
Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting
Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of
faith. He assumes that the nope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so.
Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of
Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in
bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was
indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should
present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme
authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that
more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty.
Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in
Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of
Hieropolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical
language (see ABERCIUS, INSCRIPTION OF). He speaks thus of the Roman Church:
"To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed
and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to
the supreme position of the Roman See. Tertullian's bitter polemic, "De Pudicitia"
(about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had
decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must
be in u large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks "the
peremptory edict", which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops", has sent forth.
The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position
of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop,
but from a Montanist heretic.
The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much
discussion (see CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, SAINT). He undoubtedly entertained
exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led
him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is
clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He
makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of
it as "the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" (ad Petri cathedram et
ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est). The force of this
expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the
Church. This was he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon
Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of
the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a
like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very
office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate
with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Ep. 68:1). He holds, also, that the
pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Arles fell into
heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope
Stephen "to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may
be substituted in his place" (Ep. 68:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman
See in this light believed that the pope possessed a real and effective Primacy. At the
same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in
the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop were
inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was
bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact
that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his
mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human
institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually.
The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages
may wonder that such opposition was possible.
Contemporary with St. Cyprian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents
bearing on the present question are related of him. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:9) gives us a
letter addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it
appeared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had been
frequenting the sacraments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St. Xystus's advice
and begs for his decision (), that he may not fall into error (). Again, some years later, the same patriarch occasioned anxiety to some
of the brethren by making use of some expressions which appeared hardly compatible
with a full belief in the Divinity of Christ. They promptly had recourse to the Holy See
and accused him to his namesake, St. Dionysius of Rome, of heretical leanings. The
pope replied by laying down authoritatively the true doctrine on the subject. Both
events are instructive as showing us how Rome was recognized by the second see in
Christendom as empowered to speak with authority on matters of doctrine. (St.
Athanasius, "De sententia Dionysii" in P. G., XXV, 500). Equally noteworthy is the
action of Emperor Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of
Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus
bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power.
The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the
Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident
proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman
See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the imperial Government
was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional
confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of
the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place
of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9).
The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument
further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the
fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only
in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we
have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the
supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles. It was not
of course exercised in the same way as in later times. The Church was as yet in her
infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure governing
the relations of the supreme pontiff to the bishops of other sees. To establish such a
system was the work of time, and it was only gradually embodied in the canons. There
would, moreover, be little call for frequent intervention when the Apostolic tradition
was still fresh and vigorous in every part of Christendom. Hence the papal
prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital
welfare of souls demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which
led to the intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St.
Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the Chair of Peter was not
disputed. In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone, these early popes
employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by Protestant
controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its origin in papal ambition, disappears.
The motive which inspired these men was not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith
and the consciousness that to them had been committed the responsibility of its
guardianship. The controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in
refusing to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating
from a Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are
concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence (cf., for example, Puller,
op. cit., 99, note). Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with
the statements of an individual, but with the tradition of a Church -- of that Church
which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its doctrine, and
which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St.
Paul. That tradition, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the
long series of popes bear witness. Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in which
the popes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian Churches, form part and
parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing not merely from
the Western Fathers but from those of Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the
evidence which comes to us from Rome may be skilful as a piece of special pleading,
but it can claim no other value. The first to employ this argument were some of the
Gallicans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his
"Defensio cleri gallicani" (II, 1. XI, c. vi).
The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are
dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the
Constitution "Pastor Aeternus":

"If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head
of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from
the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of
honour only: let him be anathema." "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution
of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has
perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church: OF that the Roman
Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. -- let him be
anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).
A question may be raised as to the precise dogmatic value of the clause of the second
canon in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is Peter's successor. The truth is
infallibly defined. But the Church has authority to define not merely those truths
which form part of the original deposit of revelation, but also such as are necessarily
connected with this deposit. The former are held , the latter . Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head,
Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the headship should
descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to determine, it is plain that the Apostle
need not have attached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to
another. Some have thought that the law establishing the succession in the Roman
episcopate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the
dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church's chief pastor would be the
conclusion from two premises -- the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a
supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See.
This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation,
and is accepted . According to other theologians the proposition in
question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known
the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human
testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed
truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of
the First Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the
Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to
the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church.
III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PAPAL POWER
This section is divided as follows :
the pope's universal coercive jurisdiction
the pope's immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in regard of all the faithful, whether
singly or collectively
the right of entertaining appeals in all ecclesiastical causes.
The relation of the pope's authority to that of ecumenical councils, and to the civil
power, are discussed in separate articles (see COUNCILS, GENERAL; CIVIL
ALLEGIANCE).
(1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter
head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be
bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in
heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship. The expressions binding and loosing
here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A
doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to , for
thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful
was said to ). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official
commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood
by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the
kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its
necessary accompaniment judicial authority. Moreover, the powers conferred in these
regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed:
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld.
Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which
he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent
approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who
appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore,
elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in
what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising
him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his
successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise
to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to
judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial
authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of
the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges.
The gift of this particular power, however, is not expressed with full clearness in this
passage. It needed Christ's words (John 20:23) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since
the Church is the kingdom of the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is
the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety,
supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme -- authority
to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all. Here, too,
Peter is subordinated to none save his Master alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is
the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers thus conferred are limited in
their scope by their reference to the ends of the kingdom and to them only. The
authority of Peter and his successors does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters
that are altogether extrinsic to the Church they are not concerned.
Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou
shalt bind etc.", confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift,
they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). It is, of course, the case
that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve. Yet there is a
manifest difference between the gift to Peter and that bestowed on the others. In his
case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and this power, as we have seen,
signified the supreme authority over the whole kingdom. That gift was not bestowed
on the other eleven: and the gift Christ bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was
received by them as members of the kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him
who should be Christ's vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism
between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in
Apocalypse 3:7: "He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth;
shutteth, and no man openeth." In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of
the first, and the power signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the keys is
supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to Christ and His chosen
vicegerent does Holy Scripture attribute the power of the keys.
Certain patristic passages are further adduced by non-Catholics as adverse to the
meaning given by the Church to Matthew 16:19. St. Augustine in several places tells us
that Peter received the keys as representing the Church -- e. g. "In Joan.", tr. 1:12: "Si
hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit,
Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit' (If this was said to Peter
alone, the Church cannot exercise this power . . .; if this power is exercised in the
Church, then when Peter received the keys, he signified the Holy Church); cf. tr. 124:5;
Serm. 295. It is argued that, according to Augustine, the power denoted by the keys
resides primarily not in Peter, but in the whole Church. Christ's gift to His people was
merely bestowed on Peter as representing the whole body of the faithful. The right to
forgive sins, to exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is
really the prerogative of the whole Christian congregation. If the minister performs
these acts he does so as delegate of the people. The argument, which was formerly
employed by Gallican controversialists (cf. Febronius, "De statu eccl.", 1:76), however,
rests on a misunderstanding of the passages. Augustine is controverting the Novatian
heretics, who affirmed that the power to remit sins was a purely Personal gift to Peter
alone, and had disappeared with him. He therefore asserts that Peter received it that it
might remain for ever in the Church and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone
that he says that Peter represented the Church. There is no foundation whatever for
saying that he desired to affirm that the Church was the true recipient of the power
conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole patristic tradition, and is
expressly reprobated in the First Vatican Decree, cap. 1.
It appears from what has been said that, when the popes legislate for the faithful,
when they try offenders by juridical process, and enforce their sentences by censures
and excommunications, they are employing powers conceded to them by Christ. Their
authority to exercise jurisdiction in this way is not founded on the grant of any civil
ruler. Indeed the Church has claimed and exercised these powers from the very first.
When the Apostles, after the Council of Jerusalem, sent out their decree as vested with
Divine authority (Acts 15:28), they were imposing a law on the faithful. When St. Paul
bids Timothy not receive an accusation against a presbyter unless it be supported by
two or three witnesses, he clearly supposes him to be empowered to judge him . This claim to exercise coercive jurisdiction has, as might be expected
been denied by various heterodox writers. Thus Marsilius Patavinus (Defensor Pacis
2:4), Antonius de Dominis (De rep. eccl. 4:6-7, 9), Richer (De eccl. et pol. potestate, 11-
12), and later the Synod of Pistoia, all alike maintained that coercive jurisdiction of
every kind belongs to the civil power alone, and sought to restrict the Church to the
use of moral means. This error has always been condemned by the Holy See. Thus, in
the Bull "Auctorem Fidei", Pius VI makes the following pronouncement regarding one
of the Pistoian propositions: "[The aforesaid proposition] in respect of its insinuation
that the Church does not possess authority to exact subjection to her decrees otherwise
than by means dependent on persuasion: so far as this signifies that the Church 'has
not received from God power, not merely to direct by counsel and persuasion but
further to command by laws, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and
contumacious by external and salutary penalties' [from the brief 'Ad assiduas' (1755) of
Benedict XIV], leads to a system already condemned as heretical. " Nor may it be held
that the pope's laws must exclusively concern spiritual objects, and their penalties be
exclusively of a spiritual character. The Church is a perfect society (see CHURCH XIII).
She is not dependent on the permission of the State for her existence, but holds her
charter from God. As a perfect society she has a right to all those means which are
necessary for the attaining of her end. These, however, will include far more than
spiritual objects and spiritual penalties alone: for the Church requires certain material
possessions, such, for example, as churches, schools, seminaries, together with the
endowments necessary for their sustentation. The administration and the due
protection of these goods will require legislation other than what is limited to the
spiritual sphere. A large body of canon law must inevitably be formed to determine
the conditions of their management. Indeed, there is a fallacy in the assertion that the
Church is a spiritual society; it is spiritual as regards the ultimate end to which all its
activities are directed, but not as regards its present constitution nor as regards the
means at its disposal. The question has been raised whether it be lawful for the
Church, not merely to sentence a delinquent to physical penalties, but itself to inflict
these penalties. As to this, it is sufficient to note that the right of the Church to invoke
the aid of the civil power to execute her sentences is expressly asserted by Boniface
VIII in the Bull "Unam Sanctam" This declaration, even if it be not one of those portions
of the Bull in which the pope is defining a point of faith, is so clearly connected with
the parts expressly stated to possess such character that it is held by theologians to be
theologically certain (Palmieri, "De Romano Pontifice", thes. 21). The question is of
theoretical, rather than of practical importance, since civil Governments have long
ceased to own the obligation of enforcing the decisions of any ecclesiastical authority.
This indeed became inevitable when large sections of the population ceased to be
Catholic. The state of things supposed could only exist when a whole nation was
thoroughly Catholic in spirit, and the force of papal decisions was recognized by all as
binding in conscience.
(2) The Pope's Immediate and Ordinary Jurisdiction
In the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus", cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess ordinary,
immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful: "We teach, moreover, and
declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary
authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is
true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character" (Enchir., n. 1827). It is further
added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly
or collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by
reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who
acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to
be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority
is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate
when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is
charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the
proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his
power is not Immediate but mediate. That the pope's jurisdiction is not thus restricted
appears from the analysis already given of Christ's words to St. Peter. It has been
shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church, which is universal in its
scope, extending to all the Church's members, and which needs the support of no other
power. A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct
authority over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral
commission, " Feed my sheep ". The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all
the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed to Peter
and those who follow him. This immediate authority has been always claimed by the
Holy See. It was, however, denied by Febronius (op. cit., 7:7). That writer contended
that the duty of the pope was to exercise a general oversight over the Church and to
direct the bishops by his counsel; in case of necessity, where the legitimate pastor was
guilty of grave wrong, he could pronounce sentence of excommunication against him
and proceed against him according to the canons, but he could not on his own
authority depose him (op. cit., 2:4:9). The Febronian doctrines, though devoid of any
historical foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a
powerful influence for harm on Catholic life in Germany during the eighteenth and
part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the error should be
definitively condemned. That the pope's power is truly episcopal needs no proof. It
follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and
judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards
the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed , and
.
It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope
to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the First Vatican
Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate. It is further pointed out
that St. Gregory the Great expressly repudiated this title (Ep. 7:27; 8:30). To this it is
replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the
same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the
one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental
officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one
maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight.
The First Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii): "This power of the supreme pontiff
in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in
virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have
succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several
flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained,
confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor" (Enchir., n. 1828). It is without doubt
true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and
relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But,
as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in
the First Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the
authority of the local diocesan (Ep. 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term
himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But he was
himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is
signified by this title as used in the First Vatican Decree. Thus he reverses (Ep. 6:15) a
sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself
involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of
Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Ep. 9:12). The title of universal bishop
occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the
proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander,
'Hist. eccl.", saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)
(3) The Right of Entertaining Appeals in All Ecclesiastical Causes
The Council goes on to affirm that the pope is the supreme judge of the faithful, and
that to him appeal may be made in all ecclesiastical causes. The right of appeal follows
as a necessary corollary from the doctrine of the primacy. If the pope really possesses a
supreme jurisdiction over the Church, every other authority, whether episcopal or
synodal, being subject to him, there must of necessity be an appeal to him from all
inferior tribunals. This question, however, has been the subject of much controversy.
The Gallican divines de Marca and Quesnel, and in Germany Febronius, sought to
show that the right of appeal to the pope was a mere concession derived from
ecclesiastical canons, and that the influence of the pseudo-Isidorean decretals had led
to many unjustifiable exaggerations in the papal claims. The arguments of these
writers are at the present day employed by frankly anti-Catholic controversialists with
a view to showing that the whole primacy is a merely human institution. It is
contended that the right of appeal was first granted at Sardica (343), and that each step
of its subsequent development can be traced. History, however, renders it abundantly
clear that the right of appeal had been known from primitive times, and that the
purpose of the Sardican canons was merely to give conciliar ratification to an already
existing usage. It will be convenient to speak first of the Sardican question, and then to
examine the evidence as regards previous practice.
In the years immediately preceding Sardica, St. Athanasius had appealed to Rome
against the decision of the Council of Tyre (335). Pope Julius had annulled the action of
that council, and had restored Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra to their sees. The
Eusebians, however, had contested his right to call a conciliar decision in question. The
fathers who met at Sardica, and who included the most eminent of the orthodox party
from East and West alike, desired by their decrees to affirm this right, and to establish
a canonical mode of procedure for such appeals. The principal provisions of the canons
which deal with this matter are:

that a bishop condemned by the bishops of his
province may appeal to the pope either on his own initiative or through his judges;
that if the pope entertains the appeal he shall appoint a court of second instance
drawn from the bishops of the neighbouring provinces; he may, if he thinks fit, send
judges to sit with the bishops.

There is nothing whatever to suggest that new
privileges are being conferred. St. Julius had recently, not merely exercised the right of
hearing appeals in the most formal manner, but had severely censured the Eusebians
for neglecting to respect the supreme judicial rights of the Roman See: "for", he writes,
"if they [Athanasius and Marcellus] really did some wrong, as you say, the judgment
ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus.... Do you
not know that this has been the custom first to write to us, and then for that which is
just to be defined from hence?" (Athanasius, "Apol." 35) . Nor is there the smallest
ground for the assertion that the pope's action is hedged in within narrow limits, on
the ground that no more is permitted than that he should order a re-hearing to take
place on the spot. The fathers in no way disputed the pope's right to hear the case at
Rome. But their object was to deprive the Eusebians of the facile excuse that it was idle
for appeals to be carried to Rome, since there the requisite evidence could not be
forthcoming. They therefore provided a canonical procedure which should not be open
to that objection.
Having thus shown that there is no ground for the assertion that the right of appeal
was first granted at Sardica, we may now consider the evidence for its existence in
earlier times. The records of the second century are so scanty as to throw but little light
on the subject. Yet it would seem that Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla appealed to
Rome against the decision of the Phrygian bishops. Tertullian (Con. Prax. 1), tells us
that the pope at first acknowledged the genuineness of their prophecies, and that thus
"he was giving peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia", when further information
led him to recall the letters of peace which he had issued. The fact that the pope's
decision had weight to decide the whole question of their orthodoxy is sufficiently
significant. But in St Cyprian's correspondence we find clear and unmistakable
evidence of a system of appeals. Basilides and Martial, the bishops of Leon and Merida
in Spain, had in the persecution accepted certificates of idolatry. They confessed their
guilt, and were in consequence deposed, other bishops being appointed to the sees. In
the hope of having themselves reinstated they appealed to Rome, and succeeded, by
misrepresenting the facts, in imposing on St. Stephen, who ordered their restoration. It
has been objected to the evidence drawn from this incident, that St. Cyprian did not
acknowledge the validity of the papal decision, but exhorted the people of Leon and
Merida to hold fast to the sentence of deposition (Ep. 67:6). But the objection misses the
point of St. Cyprian's letter. In the case in question there was no room for a legitimate
appeal, since the two bishops had confessed. An acquittal obtained after spontaneous
confession could not be valid. It has further been urged that, in the case of Fortunatus
(Ep. 59:10), Cyprian denies his right of appeal to Rome, and asserts the sufficiency of
the African tribunal. But here too the objection rests upon a misunderstanding.
Fortunatus had procured consecration as Bishop of Carthage from a heretical bishop,
and St. Cyprian asserts the competency of the local synod in his case on the ground
that he is no true bishop -- a mere . Juridically considered he is
merely an insubordinate presbyter, and he must submit himself to his own bishop. At
that period the established custom denied the right of appeal to the inferior clergy. On
the other hand, the action of Fortunatus indicates that he based his claim to bring the
question of his status before the pope on the ground that he was a legitimate bishop.
Privatus of Lambese, the heretical consecrator of Fortunatus who had previously been
himself condemned by a synod of ninety bishops (Ep. 59:10), had appealed to Rome
without success (Ep. 36:4).
The difficulties at Carthage which led to the Donatist schism provide us with another
instance. When the seventy Numidian bishops, who had condemned Caecilian,
invoked the aid of the emperor, the latter referred them to Rome, that the case might
be decided by Pope Miltiades (313). St. Augustine makes frequent mention of the
circumstances, and indicates plainly that he holds it to have been Caecilian's
undoubted right to claim a trial before the pope. He says that Secundus should never
have dared to condemn Caecilian when he declined to submit his case to the African
bishops, since he had the right "to reserve his whole case to the judgment of other
colleagues, especially to that of Apostolical Churches" (Ep. 43:7). A little later (367) a
council, held at Tyana in Asia Minor, restored to his see Eustathius, bishop of that city,
on no other ground than that of a successful appeal to Rome. St. Basil (Ep. 263:3) tells
us that they did not know what test of orthodoxy Liberius had required. He brought a
letter from the pope demanding his restoration, and this was accepted as decisive by
the council It should be observed that there can be no question here of the pope
employing prerogatives conferred on him at Sardica, for he did not follow the
procedure there indicated. Indeed there is no good reason to believe that the Sardican
procedure ever came into use in either East or West. In 378 the appellate jurisdiction of
the pope received civil sanction from Emperor Gratian. Any charge against a
metropolitan was to come before the pope himself or a court of bishops nominated by
him, while all (Western) bishops had the right of appeal from - their provincial synod
to the pope (Mansi, III, 624). Similarly Valentinian III in 445 assigned to the pope the
right of evoking to Rome any cause he should think fit (Cod. Theod. Novell., tit. 24, De
episcoporum ordin.). These ordinances were not, however, in any sense the source of
the pope's jurisdiction, which rested on Divine institution; they were civil sanctions
enabling the pope to avail himself of the civil machinery of the empire in discharging
the duties of his office. What Pope Nicholas I said of the synodal declarations
regarding the privileges of the Holy See holds good here also: "Ista privilegia huic
sanctae Ecclesiae a Christo donata, a synodis non donata, sed jam solummodo venerata
et celebrata" (These privileges bestowed by Christ on this Holy Church have not been
granted her by synods, but merely proclaimed and honoured by them) ("Ep. ad
Michaelem Imp." in P. L., CXIX, 948).
Much has been made by anti-Catholic writers of the famous letter "Optaremus",
addressed in 426 by the African bishops to Pope St. Celestine at the close of the
incident relating to the priest Apiarius. As the point is discussed in a special article
(APIARIUS OF SICCA), a brief reference will suffice here. Protestant controversialists
maintain that in this letter the African bishops positively repudiate the claim of Rome
to an appellate jurisdiction, the repudiation being consequent on the fact that they had
in 419 satisfied themselves that Pope Zosimus was mistaken in claiming the authority
of Nicaea for the Sardican canons. This is an error. The letter, it is true, urges with
some display of irritation that it would be both more reasonable and more in harmony
with the fifth Nicene canon regarding the inferior clergy and the laity, if even
episcopal cases were left to the decision of the African synod. The pope's authority is
nowhere denied, but the sufficiency of the local tribunals is asserted. Indeed the right
of the pope to deal with episcopal cases was freely acknowledged by the African
Church even after it had been shown that the Sardican canons did not emanate from
Nicaea. Antony, Bishop of Fussala, prosecuted an appeal to Rome against St.
Augustine in 423, the appeal being supported by the Primate of Numidia (Ep. ccix).
Moreover, St. Augustine in his letter to Pope Celestine on this subject urges that
previous popes have dealt with similar cases in the same manner, sometimes by
independent decisions and sometimes by confirmation of the decisions locally given
(ipsa sede apostolica judicante vel aliorum judicata firmante), and that he could cite
examples either from ancient or from more recent times (Ep. 209:8). These facts appear
to be absolutely conclusive as to the traditional African practice. That the letter
"Optaremus" did not result in any change is evinced by a letter of St. Leo's in 446,
directing what is to be done in the case of a certain Lupicinus who had appealed to
him (Ep. 12:13). It is occasionally argued that if the pope really possessed a supreme jurisdiction, the African bishops would neither have raised any
question in 419 as to whether the alleged canons were authentic, nor again have in 426
requested the pope to take the Nicene canon as the norm of his action. Those who
reason in this way fail to see that, where canons have been established prescribing the
mode of procedure to be followed in the Church, right reason demands that the
supreme authority should not alter them except for some grave cause, and, as long as
they remain the recognized law of the Church should observe them. The pope as God's
vicar must govern according to reason, not arbitrarily nor capriciously. This, however,
is a very different thing from saying, as did the Gallican divines, that the pope is
subject to the canons. He is not subject to them, because he is competent to modify or
to annul them when he holds this to be best for the Church.
IV. JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE
In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of
every department of the Church's life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights and
duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in
regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the
whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by
express delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the
universal source. of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine
in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates.
(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be
believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the
propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

it
is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of
faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12); it is his to prescribe
and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example,
Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.
The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a
canonically erected Catholic university; to him also belongs the direction of Catholic
missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the
Propaganda.
It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to
determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics;
his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of
some minor degree of censure, and lastly he has the right to interpret authentically the
natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and
family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.
(2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard
to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this
sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus the
pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt
should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the
point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise
prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks
the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
At the present day the institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a
comparatively recent time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved
to Rome.
The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held
that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for
the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision.
He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said.
He dispenses the treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is
reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the
sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ
and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him; he can give to simple
priests the Power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens,
and he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony.
(3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights: he can
legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council; if he
legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its
deliberations, to confirm its acts.
He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those
established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed,
and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed;
he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and
can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard. In this connexion may be
mentioned his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God renders it
desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a
restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the
Holy See.
(4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority are reserved to him. By
this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great moment, or those in which
personages of eminent dignity are concerned.
His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should,
however, be noted that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with
in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an appeal (Trent,
Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment, he can inflict censures either by
judicial sentence or by general laws which operate without need of such sentence.
He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before
the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a
bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party.
(5) As the supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all
appointments to its public offices. Thus it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, where
the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone
can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can,
where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation.
He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour
of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters.
He can approve new religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the
authority of local ordinaries.
Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is
requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He
may obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the
present day this is exercised through the triennial visit
required of all bishops. This system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585 (Constitution,
"Rom. Pontifex"), and confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740 (Constitution, "Quod
Sancta").
It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church carries
with it the right to free intercourse with the pastors and the faithful. The
, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore
an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was solemnly condemned by the First
Vatican Council (Constitution, "Pastor Aeternus", cap. iii). To the pope likewise
belongs the supreme administration of the goods of the Church. He alone can, where
there is just cause, alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus, e. g.,
Julius III, at the time of the restoration of religion in England under Queen Mary
validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands during the
spoliations of the previous reigns.
The pope has further the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for
ecclesiastical purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.).

Though the power
of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary
and unrestricted. "The pope", as Cardinal Hergenroether well says, "is circumscribed
by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the
duties attached to his privileges....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of
the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and
customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional
mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy -- to
'feed' -- and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit
and mind of nations" ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I, 197).
V. PRIMACY OF HONOUR: TITLES AND INSIGNIA
Certain titles and distinctive marks of honour are assigned to the pope alone; these
constitute what is termed his primacy of honour. These prerogatives are not, as are his
jurisdictional rights, attached to his office. They have grown up in the
course of history, and are consecrated by the usage of centuries; yet they are not
incapable of modification.
(1) Titles
The most noteworthy of the titles are , , , . The title () was, as has been
stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been
used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the
beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, "De Pud." 13). It was
apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman
Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P. L., XIII, 1164), and
Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope
Symmachus (P. L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640)
addresses Desiderius of Cahors as (P. L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally
prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter. The terms , were doubtless originally employed with reference to
the Jewish high-priest, whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding
each in his own diocese (I Clement 40). As regards the title ,
especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity
attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the
phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that
Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less
narrowly restricted in their use. was used of the bishop of some
notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled
by Eucherius of Lyons (P. L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex
summus" by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P. L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed
"summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin, "Conc.", V,
280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to
be only used of the popes. The phrase is now so entirely a
papal title that a Bull in which it should be wanting would be reckoned unauthentic.
Yet this designation also was once applied to others. Augustine (Ep. 217 a. d. Vitalem)
entitles himself "servus Christi et per Ipsum servus servorum Ipsius". Desiderius of
Cahors made use of it (Thomassin, "Ecclesiae nov. et vet. disc.", pt. I, I. I, c. iv, n. 4): so
also did St. Boniface (740), the apostle of Germany (P. L., LXXIX, 700). The first of the
popes to adopt it was seemingly Gregory I; he appears to have done co in contrast to
the claim put forward by the Patriarch of Constantinople to the title of universal
bishop (P. L., LXXV, 87). The restriction of the term to the pope alone began in the
ninth century.
(2) Insignia and Marks of Honour
The pope is distinguished by the use of the tiara or triple crown (see TIARA). At what
date the custom of crowning the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly
previous to the forged donation of Constantine, which dates from the commencement
of the ninth century, for mention is there made of the pope's coronation. The triple
crown is of much later origin. The pope moreover does not, like ordinary bishops, use
the bent pastoral staff, but only the erect cross. This custom was introduced before the
reign of Innocent III (1198-1216) (cap. un. X de sacra unctione, I, 15). He further uses
the pallium (q. v.) at all ecclesiastical functions, and not under the same restrictions as
do the archbishops on whom he has conferred it. The kissing of the pope's foot -- the
characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of
Christ -- is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II
paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P. L., CXXVIII 949).
Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523-
6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may
be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his
ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.
VI. ELECTION OF THE POPES
The supreme headship of the Church is, we have seen, annexed to the office of Roman
bishop. The pope becomes chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome: he does not
become Bishop of Rome because he has been chosen to be head of the universal
Church. Thus, an election to the papacy is, properly speaking, primarily an election to
the local bishopric. The right to elect their bishop has ever belonged to the members of
the Roman Church. They possess the prerogative of giving to the universal Church her
chief pastor; they do not receive their bishop in virtue of his election by the universal
Church. This is not to say that the election should be by popular vote of the Romans. In
ecclesiastical affairs it is always for the hierarchy to guide the decisions of the flock.
The choice of a bishop belongs to the clergy: it may be confined to the leading
members of the clergy. It is so in the Roman Church at present. The electoral college of
cardinals exercise their office because they are the chief of the Roman clergy. Should
the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor
would fall, not on the bishops assembled in council, but upon the remaining Roman
clergy. At the time of the Council of Trent Pius IV, thinking it possible that in the event
of his death the council might lay some claim to the right, insisted on this point in a
consistorial allocution (Phillips, "Kirchenrecht", V, p. 737 n.). It is thus plain that a pope
cannot nominate his successor. History tells us of one pope -- Benedict II (530) -- who
meditated adopting this course. But he recognized that it would be a false step, and
burnt the document which he had drawn up for the purpose. On the other hand the
Church's canon law (10 D. 79) supposes that the pope may make provision for the
needs of the Church by suggesting to the cardinals some one whom he regards as
fitted for the office: and we know that Gregory VII secured in this way the election of
Victor III. Such a step, however, does not in any way fetter the action of the cardinals.
The pope can, further, legislate regarding the mode in which the subsequent election
shall be carried out, determining the composition of the electoral college, and the
conditions requisite for a definitive choice. The method at present followed is the
result of a series of enactments on this subject.
A brief historical review will show how the principle of election by the Roman
Church has been maintained through all the vicissitudes of papal elections. St. Cyprian
tells us in regard to the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251) that the comprovincial
bishops, the clergy, and the people all took part in it: "He was made bishop by the
decree of God and of His Church, by the testimony of nearly all the clergy, by the
college of aged bishops [], and of good men"(Ep. Iv ad Anton., n. 8).
And a precisely similar ground is alleged by the Roman priests in their letter to
Emperor Honorius regarding the validity of the election of Boniface I (A. D. 418; P. L.,
XX, 750). Previous to the fall of the Western Empire interference by the civil power
seems to have been inconsiderable. Constantius, it is true, endeavoured to set up an
antipope, Felix II (355), but the act was universally regarded as heretical. Honorius on
the occasion of the contested election of 418 decreed that, when the election was
dubious, neither party should hold the papacy, but that a new election should take
place. This method was applied at the elections of Conon (686) and Sergius I (687). The
law is found in the Church's code (c. 8, d. LXXIX), though Gratian declares it void of
force as having emanated from civil and not ecclesiastical authority (d. XCVI, proem.;
d. XCVII, proem.). After the barbarian conquest of Italy, the Church's rights were less
carefully observed. Basilius, the prefect of Odoacer, claimed the right of supervising
the election of 483 in the name of his master, alleging that Pope Simplicius had himself
requested him to do so (Hard., II, 977). The disturbances which occurred at the
disputed election of Symmachus (498) led that pope to hold a council and to decree the
severest penalties on all who should be guilty of canvassing or bribery in order to
attain the pontificate. It was moreover decided that the majority of votes should decide
the election. Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who at this period ruled Italy, became in his
later years a persecutor of the Church. He even went so far as to appoint Felix III (IV)
in 526 as the successor of Pope John I, whose death was due to the incarceration to
which the king had condemned him. Felix, however, was personally worthy of the
office, and the appointment was confirmed by a subsequent election. The precedent of
interference set by Theodoric was fruitful of evil to the Church. After the destruction of
the Gothic monarchy (537), the Byzantine emperors went even farther than the
heretical Ostrogoth in encroaching on ecclesiastical rights. Vigilius (540) and Pelagius I
(553) were forced on the Church at imperial dictation. In the case of the latter there
seems to have been no election: his title was validated solely through his recognition as
bishop by clergy and people. The formalities of election at this time were as follows
(Lib. Diurnus Rom. Pont., 2, in P. L., CV, 27). After the pope's death, the archpriest, the
archdeacon and the primicerius of the notaries sent an official notification to the exarch
at Ravenna. On the third day after the decease the new pope was elected, being
invariably chosen from among the presbyters or deacons of the Roman Church (cf. op.
cit., 2, titt. 2, 3 5), and an embassy was despatched to Constantinople to request the
official confirmation of the election. Not until this had been received did the
consecration take Place. The Church acquired greater freedom after the Lombard
invasion of 568 had destroyed the prestige of Byzantine power in Italy. Pelagius II
(,578) and Gregory I (590) were the spontaneous choice of the electors. And in 684,
owing to the long delays involved in the journey to Constantinople, Constantine IV
(Pogonatus) acceded to Benedict II's request that in future it should not be necessary to
wait for confirmation, but that a mere notification of the election would suffice. The
1088 of the exarchate and the iconoclastic heresy of the Byzantine court completed the
severance between Rome and the Eastern Empire, and Pope Zacharias (741) dispensed
altogether with the customary notice to Constantinople.
In 769 a council was held under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the
intrusion of the antipope Constantine. This usurper was a layman hurriedly raised to
priest's orders to render his nomination to the pontificate possible. To make a
repetition of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only members of the sacred
college were eligible for election. The part of the laity was, moreover, reduced to a
mere right of acclamation. Under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious the Church
retained her freedom. Lothair, however, claimed more ample rights for the civil
power. In 824 he exacted an oath from the Romans that none should be consecrated
pope without the permission and the presence of his ambassadors. This was, in fact,
done at most of the elections during the ninth century, and in 898 the riots which
ensued upon the death of Pope Stephen V led John IX to give ecclesiastical sanction to
this system of imperial control. In a council held at Rome in that year he decreed that
the election should be made by bishops (cardinal) and clergy, regard being had to the
wishes of the people, but that no consecration should take place except in the presence
of the imperial legate (Mansi XVIII, 225).
The due formalities at least of election appear to have been observed through the wild
disorders which followed the collapse of the Carlovingian Empire: and the same is true
as regards the times of Otto the Great and his son. Under the restored empire,
however, the electors enjoyed no freedom of choice. Otto I even compelled the Romans
to swear that they would never elect or ordain a pope without his or his son's consent
(963; cf. Liutprand, "Hist. Ott.", viii). In 1046 the scandals of the preceding elections, in
which the supreme pontificate had become a prize for rival factions entirely regardless
of what means they employed, led clergy and people to leave the nomination to Henry
III. Three popes were chosen in this manner. But Leo IX insisted that the Church was
free in the choice of her pastors, and, until he was duly elected at Rome, declined to
assume any of the state of his office. The party of reform, of which Hildebrand was the
moving spirit, were eager for some measure which should restore an independent
choice to the Church. This was carried out by Nicholas II. In 1059 he held a council in
the Lateran and issued the Decree "In Nomine". This document is found in two
recensions, a papal and an imperial, both of early date. There is however little doubt
that the papal recension embodied in the "Decretum Gratiani " (c. 1. d. XXIII) is
genuine, and that the other was altered in the interest of the antipope Guibert (1080,
Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", IV, 800, 899). The right of election is confined to the
cardinals, the effective choice being placed in the hands of the cardinal bishops: clergy
and people have a right of acclamation only. The right of confirmation is granted to the
Emperor Henry IV and to such of his successors as should personally request and
receive the privilege. The pope need not necessarily be taken from the number of
cardinals, though this should be the case if possible.
This decree formed the basis of the present legislation on the papal election, though
the system underwent considerable development. The first important modification was
the Constitution "Licet de Vitanda" [c. vi, X, "De elect." (I, 6)] of Alexander III, the first
of the decrees passed by the Third Oecumenical Council of the Lateran (1179). To
prevent the evils of a disputed election it was established by this law that no one
should be held dub elected until two thirds of the cardinals should have given their
votes for him. In this decree no distinction is made between the rights of the cardinal
bishops and those of the rest of the Sacred College. The imperial privilege of
confirming the election had already become obsolete owing to the breach between the
Church and the Empire under Henry IV and Frederick I. Between the death of Clement
IV (1268) and the coronation of Gregory X (1272) an interregnum of nearly three years
intervened. To prevent a repetition of so great a misfortune the pope in the Council of
Lyons (1179) issued the Decree " Ubi periculum " [c. iii, " De elect.", in 60 (I, 6)], by
which it was ordained that during the election of a pontiff the cardinals should be
secluded from the world under exceedingly stringent regulations, and that the
seclusion should continue till they had fulfilled their duty of providing the Church
with a supreme pastor. To this electoral session was given the name of the Conclave (q.
v.). This system prevails at the present day.
VII. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE POPES
The historical lists of the popes, from those drawn up in the second century to those of
the present day, form in themselves a considerable body of literature. It would be
beyond the scope of the article to enter upon a discussion of these catalogues. For an
account of the most famous of them all, the article LIBER PONTIFICALIS may be
consulted. It appears, however, desirable to indicate very briefly what are our
authorities for the names and the durations in office of the popes for the first two
centuries of the Church's existence.
Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn,
enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist.
eccl." 5:6) . His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the
traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was
the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the
length of the various episcopates. This need is supplied by other witnesses. Most
important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the " Liberian Catalogue " --
so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The collection of tracts of which this
forms a part was edited (apparently by one Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The
catalogue consists of a list of the Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length
of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor,
and in many cases other details. There is the strongest ground for believing that the
earlier part of the catalogue, as far as Pontian (230-35), is the work of Hippolytus of
Portus. It is manifest that up to this point the fourth century compiler was making use
of a different authority from that which he employs for the subsequent popes: and
there is evidence rendering it almost certain that Hippolytus's work "Chronica"
contained such a list. The reign of Pontian, moreover, would be the point at which that
list would have stopped: for Hippolytus and he were condemned to servitude in the
Sardinian mines -- a fact which the chronographer makes mention when speaking of
Pontian's episcopate. Lightfoot has argued that this list originally contained nothing
but the names of the bishops and the duration of their episcopates, the remaining notes
being additions by a later hand. The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus,
save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears
before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has
also been interchanged. There is every reason to regard; these differences as due to the
errors of copyists. Another witness is Eusebius. The names and episcopal years of the
bishops can be gathered alike from his "History" and his "Chronicle". The notices in the
two works; can be shown to be m agreement, notwithstanding certain corruptions in
many texts of the "Chronicle". This Eastern list in the hands of Eusebius is seen to have
been identical with the Western list of Hippolytus, except that in the East the name of
Linus's successor seems to have been given as Anencletus, in the original Western list
as Cletus. The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus,
xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4) Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7)
Sixtus, x; (8) Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12)
Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii; (16) Callistus, v;
(17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 152).
We learn from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:22) that in the middle of the second century
Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christian, visited Rome and that he drew up a list of bishops
as far as Anicetus, the then pope. Eusebius does not quote his catalogue, but Lightfoot
sees ground for holding that we possess it in a passage of Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6), in
which the bishops as far as Anicetus are enumerated. This list of Hegesippus, drawn
up less than a century after the martyrdom of St. Peter, was he believes, the foundation
alike of the Eusebian and Hippolytan catalogues (Clement of Rome I, 325 so.). His
view has been accepted by many scholars. Even those who, like Harnack (Chronologie,
I, 184 sq.), do not admit that this list is really that of Hegesippus, recognize it as a
catalogue of Roman origin and of very early date, furnishing testimony independent
alike of the Eusebian and Liberian lists.
The "Liber Pontificalis", long accepted as an authority of the highest value, is now
acknowledged to have been originally composed at the beginning of the fifth century,
and, as regards the early popes, to be dependent on the "Liberian Catalogue".
In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various
lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the
third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still
doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or
intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be
included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following
Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his
consecration. At that period the papal dignity was held to be conferred at consecration,
and hence he is excluded from all the early lists. Leo VIII (963) is included, as the
resignation of Benedict V, though enforced, may have been genuine. Boniface VII is
also ranked as a pope, since, in 984 at least, he would seem to have been accepted as
such by the Roman Church. The claim of Benedict X (1058) is likewise recognized. It
cannot be affirmed that his title was certainly invalid, and his name, though now
sometimes excluded, appears in the older catalogues. It should be observed that there
is no John XX in the catalogue. This is due to the fact that, in the " Liber Pontificalis ",
two dates are given in connexion with the life of John XIV (983). This introduced
confusion into some of the papal catalogues, and a separate pope was assigned to each
of these dates. Thus three popes named John were made to appear between Benedict
VII and Gregory V. The error led the pope of the thirteenth century who should have
been called John XX to style himself John XXI (Duchesne, "Lib. Pont." 2:17). Some only
of the antipopes find mention in the list. No useful purpose would be served by giving
the name of every such claimant. Many of them possess no historical importance
whatever. From Gregory VII onward not merely the years but the precise days are
assigned on which the respective reigns commenced and closed. Ancient authorities
furnish these details in the case of most of the foregoing popes also: but, previously to
the middle of the eleventh century, the information is of uncertain value. With Gregory
VII a new method of reckoning came in. The papal dignity was held to be conferred by
the election, and not as previously by the coronation, and the commencement of the
reign was computed from the day of election. This point seems therefore a convenient
one at which to introduce the more detailed indications.
Chronological List of the Popes
St. Peter, d. 67 (?)
St. Linus, 67-79 (?)
St. Anacletus, I, 79-90(?)
St. Clement I, 90-99(?)
St. Evaristus 99-107(?)
St. Alexander I, 107-16(?)
St. Sixtus (Xystus) I, 116-25(?)
St. Telesphorus, 125-36(?)
St. Hyginus, 136-40(?)
St. Pius, 140-54(?)
St. Anicetus, 154-65(?)
St. Soter, 165-74
St. Eleutherius, 174-89
St. Victor, 189-98
St. Zephyrinus, 198-217
St. Callistus I, 217-22
St. Urban I, 222-30
St. Pontian, 230-35
St. Anterus, 235-36
St. Fabian, 236-50
St. Cornelius, 251-53
, 251-58(?)
St. Lucius I, 253-54
St. Stephen I, 254-57
St. Sixtus (Xystus) II, 257-58
St. Dionysius, 259-68
St. Felix I, 269-74
St. Eutychian, 275-83
St. Caius, 283-96
St. Marcellinus, 296-304
St. Marcellus I, 308-09
St. Eusebius, 309(310)
St. Melchiades (Miltiades), 311-14
St. Sylvester I, 314-35
St. Marcus, 336
St. Julius I, 337-52
St. Liberius, 352-6
, 355-65
Damasus I, 366-84
St. Siricius, 384-98
St. Anastasius I, 398-401
St. Innocent I, 402-17
St. Zosimus, 417-18
St. Boniface I, 418-22
St. Celestine I, 422-32
St. Sixtus (Xystus) III, 432-40
St. Leo I, 440-61
St. Hilarius, 461-68
St. Simplicius, 468-83
St. Felix II (III), 483-92
St. Gelasius I, 492-96
St. Anastasius II, 496-98
St. Symmachus, 498-514
St. Hormisdas, 514-23
St. John I, 523-26
St. Felix III (IV), 526-30
Boniface II, 530-32
John II, 533-35
St. Agapetus I, 535-36
St. Silverius, 536-38(?)
Vigilius, 538(?)-55
Pelagius I, 556-61
John III, 561-74
Benedict I, 575-79
Pelagius II, 579-90
St. Gregory I, 590-604
Sabinianus, 604-06
Boniface III, 607
St. Boniface IV, 608-15
St. Deusdedit, 615-18
Boniface V, 619-25
Honorius I, 625-38
Severinus, 638-40
John IV, 640-2
Theodore I, 642-49
St. Martin I, 649-55
St. Eugene I, 654-57
St. Vitalian, 657-72
Adeodatus, 672-76
, 676-78
St. Agatho, 678-81
St. Leo II, 682-83
St. Benedict II, 684-85
John V, 686-86
Conon, 686-7
St. Sergius I, 687-701
John VI, 701-05
John VII, 705-07
Sisinnius, 708
Constantine, 708-15
St. Gregory II, 715-31
St. Gregorv III, 731-41
St. Zacharias, 741-52
, 767-68
Stephen III (IV), 768-72
Adrian I, 772-95
St. Leo III, 795-816
Stephen IV (V), 816-17
St. Paschal I, 817-24
Eugene II, 824-27
Valentine, 827
Gregory IV, 827-44
Sergius II, 844-47
St. Leo IV, 847-55
Benedict III, 855-58
, 855
St. Nicholas I, 858-67
Adrian II, 867-72
John VIII, 872-82
Marinus I (Martin II), 882-84
Adrian III, 884-85
Stephen V (VI), 885-91
Formosus, 891-96
Boniface VI, 896
Stephen VI (VII), 896-97
Romanus, 897
Theodore II, 897
John IX, 898-900
Benedict IV, 900-03
Leo V, 903
Christopher, 903-04
Sergius III, 904-11
Anastasius III, 911-13
Lando, 913-14
John X, 914-28
Leo VI, 928
Stephen VII (VIII), 928-31
John XI, 931-36
Leo VII, 936-39
Stephen VIII (IX), 939-42
Marinus II (Martin III), 942-46
Agapetus II, 946-55
John XII, 955-64
Leo VIII, 963-65
Benedict V, 964
John XIII, 965-72
Benedict VI, 973-74
, 974
Benedict VII, 974-83
John XIV, 983-84
Boniface VII, 984-85
John XV, 985-96
Gregory V, 996-99
, 997-98
Silvester II, 999-1003
John XVII, 1003
John XVIII, 1003-09
Sergius IV, 1009-12
Benedict VIII, 1012-24
John XIX, 1024-32
Benedict IX (a) , 1032-45
, 1045
Gregory VI. 1045-46
Clement II, 1046-47
, 1047-48
Damasus II, 1048
St. Leo IX, 1049-54
Victor II, 1055-57
Stephen IX (X), 1057-58
Benedict X, 1058-59
Nicholas II, 1059-61
Alexander II, 1061-73
, 1061-64
St. Gregory VII, 22 Apr., 1073-25 May, 1085
, 1084-1100
Victor III, 9 May, 1087-16 Sept., 1087
Urban II, 12 March, 1088-29 July, 1099
Paschal II, 13 Aug., 1099-21 Jan., 1118
, 1105-11
Gelasius II, 24 Jan., 1118-28 Jan., 1119
, 1118-21
Callistus II, 2 Feb., 1119-13 Dee. 1124
Honorius II, 15 Dec., 1124-13 Feb., 1130
, 1124
Innocent II, 14 Feb., 1130-24 Sept., 1143
, 1130-38
, 1138
Celestine II, 26 Sept., 1143-8 March, 1144
Lucius II, 12 March, 1144 (cons.)-15 Feb.,1145
Eugene III, 15 Feb., 1145-8 July, 1153
Anastasius IV, 12 July, 1153 (cons.)-3 Dec., 1154
Adrian IV, 4 Dee., 1154-1 Sept., 1159
Alexander III, 7 Sept., 1159-30 Aug., 1181
, 1159-64
, 1164-68
, 1168-78
, 1179-80
Lucius III, 1 Sept., 1181-25 Nov., 1185
Urban III, 25 Nov., 1185-20 Oct., 1187
Gregory VIII, 21 Oct.-17 Dec., 1187
Clement III, 19 Dec., 1187-March, 1191
Celestine III, 30 March, 1191-8 Jan., 1198
Innocent III, 8 Jan., 1198-16 July, 1216
Honorius III, 18 July, 1216-18 Mareb, 1227
Gregory IX, 19 Mareh, 1227-22 Aug., 1241
Celestine IV, 25 Oct.-10 Nov., 1241
Innocent IV, 25 June, 1243-7 Dec., 1254
Alexander IV, 12 Dec., 1254-25 May 1261
Urban IV, 29 Aug., 1261-2 Oct., 1264
Clement IV, 5 Feb., 1265-29 Nov., 1268
St. Gregory X, 1 Sept., 1271-10 Jan., 1276
Innocent V, 21 Jan.-22 June, 1276
Adrian V, 11 July-18 Aug., 1276
John XXI, 8 Sept., 1276-20 May, 1277
Nieholas III, 25 Nov., 1277-22 Aug., 1280
Martin IV, 25 Feb., 1281-28 March, 1285
Honorius IV, 2 Apr., 1285-3 Apr., 1287
Nicholas IV, 22 Feb., 1288-4 Apr., 1292
St. Celestine V, 5 July-13 Dec., 1294
Boniface VIII, 24 Dec., 1294-11 Oct., 1303
Benedict XI, 22 Oct., 1303-7 July, 1304
Clement V, 5 June, 1305-20 Apr., 1314
John XXII, 7 Aug., 1316-4 Dec., 1334
, 1328-30
Benedict XII, 20 Dec., 1334-25 Apr., 1342
Clement VI, 7 May, 1342-6 Dec., 1352
Innocent VI, 18 Dec., 1352-12 Sept., 1362
Urban V, 6 Nov. 1362 (cons.)-19 Dec., 1370
Gregory XI, 30 Dec., 1370-27 March, 1378
Urban VI, 8 Apr., 1378-15 Oct., 1389
, 1378-94
Boniface IX, 2 Nov., 1389-1 Oct., 1404
, 1394-1424
Innocent VII, 17 Oct., 1404-6 Nov., 1406
Gregory XII, 30 Nov., 1406-4 July, 1415
Alexander V, 26 June, 1409-3 May, 1410
John XXIII, 17 May, 1410-29 May, 1415
Martin V, 11 Nov., 1417-20 Feb., 1431
, 1424-29
, 1424
Eugene IV, 3 March, 1431-23 Feb., 1447
, 1439-49
Nicholas V, 6 March, 1447-24 March, 1455
Callistus III, 8 Apr., 1455-6 Aug., 1458
Pius II, 19 Aug., 1458-15 Aug., 1464
Paul II, 31 Aug., 1464-26 July, 1471
Sixtus IV, 9 Aug., 1471-12 Aug., 1484
Innocent VIII, 29 Aug., 1484-25 July, 1492
Alexander VI, 11 Aug., 1492-18 Aug., 1503
Pius III, 22 Sept.-18 Oct., 1503
Julius II, 1 Nov., 1503-21 Feb., 1513
Leo X, 11 March, 1513-1 Dec., 1521
Adrian VI, 9 Jan., 1522-14 Sept., 1523
Clement VII, 19 Nov., 1523-25 Sept., 1534
Paul III, 13 Oct., 1534-10 Nov., 1549
Julius III, 8 Feb., 1550-23 March, 1555
Marcellus II, 9-30 Apr., 1555
Paul IV, 23 May, 1555-18 Aug., 1559
Pius IV, 25 Dec., 1559-9 Dec., 1565
St. Pius V, 7 Jan., 1566-1 May, 1572
Gregory XIII, 13 May, 1572-10 Apr., 1585
Sixtus V, 24 Apr., 1585-27 Aug., 1590
Urban VII, 15-27 Sept., 1590
Gregory XIV, 5 Dec., 1590-15 Oct., 1591
Innocent IX, 29 Oct.-30 Dec., 1591
Clement VIII, 30 Jan., 1592-5 March, 1605
Leo XI, 1-27 Apr., 1605
Paul V, 16 May, 1605-28 Jan., 1621
Gregorv XV, 9 Feb., 1621-8 July, 1623
Urban VIII, 6 Aug., 1623-29 July, 1644
Innocent X, 15 Sept., 1644-7 Jan., 1655
Alexander VII, 7 Apr., 1655-22 May, 1667
Clement IX, 20 June, 1667-9 Dec., 1669
Clement X, 29 Apr., 1670-22 July, 1676
Innocent XI, 21 Sept., 1676-11 Aug., 1689
Alexander VIII, 6 Oct., 1689-1 Feb., 1691
Innocent XII, 12 July, 1691-27 Sept., 1700
Clement XI, 23 Nov., 1700-19 March, 1721
Innocent XIII, 8 May, 1721-7 March, 1724
Benedict XIII, 29 May, 1724-21 Feb., 1730
Clement XII, 12 July, 1730-6 Feb., 1740
Benedict XIV, 17 Aug., 1740-3 May, 1758
Clement XIII, 6 July, 1758-2 Feb., 1769
Clement XIV, 19 May, 1769-22 Sept., 1774
Pius VI, 15 Feb., 1775-29 Aug., 1799
Pius VII, 14 March, 1800 20 Aug., 1823
Leo XII, 28 Sept., 1823-10 Feb., 1829
Pius VIII, 31 March, 1829-30 Nov., 1830
Gregory XVI, 2 Feb., 1831-1 June, 1846
Pius IX, 16 June, 1846-7 Feb., 1878
Leo XIII, 20 Feb., 1878-20 July, 1903
Pius X, 4 Aug., 1903-
ROCABERTI, (21 vols., Rome, 1695-99); ROKOVANY,
(16vols., Neutra, 1867-79). The collection of
ROCABERTI embraces the works of more than a hundred authors (from the ninth to
the seventeenth century) on primacy. ROKOVANY'S work is a collection of documents
dealing with the primacy, the civil principality, infallibility, the First Vatican Council,
etc. A valuable feature of the work is a vast bibliography of books and pamphlets
treating of the subject from the earliest times up to the date of publication, with useful
appreciations of many of the works mentioned. BELLARMINE, , I (Ingolstadt, 1601); BALLERINI, in
MIGNE, Thesaurus, III, 906; PALMIERI, (Rome, 1877);
PASSAGLIE, (Ratisbone, 1850);
HERGENROETHER, (London, 1876). On the
primacy in the primitive Church: RIVINGTON, (London, 1894); IDEM, (London, 1899);
CHAPMAN, (London, 1905), vi-vii. On the
right of the pope to receive appeals: LUPUS, ,
VIII (Venice, 1726); ALEXANDER NATALIS, 4:28: ; BALLERINI, in MIGNE,
P.L., LV, 534; HEFELE-LECLERCQ, , I (2), p. 759 sq. (Paris, 1907).
On the primacy of honour: PHILLIPS, (Ratisbon, 1854); HINSCHIUS,
(Berlin 1869). On papal elections: PHILLIPS, op.
cit.; HINSCHIUS, op. cit.; THOMASSIN, (Lyons,
1706); SCHEFFER-BOICHORST,
(Strasburg, 1879). On the chronology of the popes: DUCHESNE, (Paris,
1892); GAMS, (Ratisbon, 1873).
G. H. JOYCE
Transcribed by Gerard Haffner
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the
entire Catholic Encyclopedia on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this
worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at (knight@knight.org). For
more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com